National Republican., 1887-10-28

State.
Anticipation OF the argument before the
Supreme Court Of the United States yester-
day upon the application for writ OF err
ror in the case Of the Chicago anarchists at
tracted TO the chamber q crowd OF eager
people as anxious to secure admission as II
the anarchists themselves were to be pro-
duced before the court In fetters and argue
their case In person. More than an hour
before the judges assembled the court
room was densely crowded with people,
who not only occupied all the seats pro-
vided fer spectators, but encroached upon
the precincts OF the bar and stood In closely
packed throDgs In the open spaces on each
side OF the door. Even out in the corridor
there was crowd endeavoring to at least
get glimpse OF the interior OF the court
room through the entrance. The audience
was destined, however, to be at least for q
time disappointed. When the court was
called to order at 10 O'Clock and the candi.
dates for admission to the bar had been
sworn, the Chief Justice announced that
the court would proceed with the unfin-
fshed business Of the day previous. This
was case from Louisiana, which, how
ever important to the litigapts, had very
little popular interest.
This argument was concluded by Mr..
Beckwith about ! o'clock, and the Chief
Justice said:
awe are ready now to hear the motion
Tor writ Of error in the case of soles and
others.n
Gen. B. +. Butler asked the court how
much time would be allowed for the argu-
ment. His brother, Mr.. Tucker, repre-.
sented, he said, the majority Of the petit
tloners; he himself represented two OF them,
whose cases were in some respects different
from those OF the Others. lie would not,
he said, speak merely for the sake OF speak
ing, but he would not like to be hurried.
"How much time do you desiie ?" asked
the Chief Justice.
Gen. Butler said he would like an hour
for his associate, Mr.. Tucker.
The Chief Justice. "Very well; we will
allow you three hours on side"
Attorney General Hunt. Of Illinois, said
that as he and his associates did not vet
know what scope the argument would take,
he could not say how much time they would
desire. He would like, however, to have
an opportunity given to his associate, Mr..
Grinnell, to speak.
The Chief Justice said that each side
would be allowed three hours, and that Mr..
Grinnell might speak.
At 1:l5 Mr.. j. Randolph Tucker opened
the argument In support of the petition for
writ OF error. He said 1t was not neces-
sary for him to show as a condition prece-
dent to the granting Of the writ, that the
action complained Of in the court below
was actually repugnant to or in violation OF
the constitution; 1t was only necessary to
show that conflict had arisen, that there
was question whether the action COM
plained OF was not repugnant to the consti-
tuition. That was enough to give the court
Jurisdiction. 1t was the, object of the
statute of 1867 to give free access to that
court In all cases where there was ques-
tion Of that kind. Itwas not necessary to
show repugnancy but only conflict. II there
was conflict then that court has Jurisdiction,
and II 1t had jurisdiction then the petition
ers were entitled to the writ as right.
''This court" said MIR. Tucker, 'ls city
OF refuge from the avenger Of blood, aud
any man who comes here and takes hold of
the horns OF fjustice should not he repulsed."
The policy Of that court, he said, had been
to deal literally with petitions for wrts of
error In civil cases. How much more
should 1t deal literally with petition for
writ of error In a criminal- case involving
the issues of life and death-in case where
life was about to be taken away In viola
tion OF the constitution.
Mr.. Tucker then proceeded to careful
analysis of the fourteenth amendment, and
an attempt to ascertain the meaning OF the
words, "Due process of law"
He said that the questions upon this ap-
plication were, first: "Have federal ques-
lions been raised in this caseP and second,
does their character Justify their review IN
this court? The act of 1867, which has been
deemed by this court to be a substitute for
the twenty-sixJh section of the judiciary
act, gives Jurisdiction, first, where statute
or authority exercised under the state, is
repugnant to the constitution of the United
States; and second, where n right, privilege
plaimpl
tion is denied"
Mr.. Tucker argued that this statute should
be construed literally to the party making
the appeal since 1t was evidently the inten-
tion Of its trainers to give free access to this
court. Therefore, If any litlgant presents
case In which the question of conflict be-
tween the ruling OF court In the enforce
ment of any law of the state and the consti-
tuition of the United States arises, 1t is not
necessary that such litgant should estab-
lish actual repugnance to the constitution,
but only to show that there is q conflict.
Mr.. Tucker then said that in the order
made by the court In this case 1t was stated
that writ of error did not issue from this
court as matter OF course, but only upon
proof that the petitioner was entitled to 1t.
He thought, however, that II the court had
Jurisdiction then the writ must issue as
matter Of right.
Proceeding then 10 the merits of the case,
Mr. Tucker said that 1t was not necessary
that law OF state should be absolutely
and on Its face unconstitutional in order to
give this court jurisdiction OF case under
1t. lfa law seemingly fair and just on It's
face should have put upon 1t by the state
courts construction contrary to the con-
stitution that was enough to give this
court Jurisdiction.
Mr.. Tucker asserted that the jury law of
the state OF Illinois was unconstitutional In
hat N InI hat thA .t..a- "a
opinion from reports or from newspaper
accounts Of a certain transaction should
not necessarily disquallfy the person hav-
ing such an opinion from sitting In judg-
ment on that transaction as a Juror.
He then referred to the objections made
by the defense at the trial to the rulings of
the court In the matter Of challenges; to
the refusal OF the court on a motion for a
new trial; to hear evidence going to show
that the bailitf had said that "the men he
had selected for the panel would be certain
to hang" and to various other rulings and
decisions of the trial court, which had the
effect OF denying to the prisoners fair trial
by an impartial Jury.
Turning then TO another question raised
by the court, he said 1t was new one In that
court. He quoted the second clause OF the
fourteenth amendment, TO the effect that
"no state shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or i'm.
munities OF citizens Of the United States.n
Among the "privileges aud immunitles"
thus guaranteed by the fourteenth amend
ment were, he contended, those set forth In
the first ten amendments to the federal
constitution such as "the right of citizens
TO be secure In their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures" Fourth amendmcnt), and the
Immunity designated In the clause OF the
hith amendment which provides that no
person shall be compelled In any criminal
case to be witness against himself.
Mr.. Justice Field. "Then you would
bring all questions TO this court | cannot
conceive of any question which cannot be
brought here If the fourteenth amendment
makes the privileges and immunities' to
which IL refers include all those nf tba a,st